Dissertation On Time

[Rade]

Again, there is no absolute past moment, nor one which exists in the future. There is only a slur of present moments which are defined by recording intelligent minds capable of dividing time into what I would call... ''slices.''

I agree in part. The 'slices' of time divided by slur of present moments is for me the concept of the "time interval" or time duration so common in physics. This time is nothing more than a simple delta number of motion of the interval from begin to end of moments. I think you already did agree with my comment that each present moment has a begin {B} and end (E), such as this picture B[ ]E, where [ ] = a present moment. At the end of a [ ]E there is a begin of a new slice of time interval, and simultaneously, each present moment recorded by the mind becomes a fixed "past" present moment, e.g., it becomes a fixed part of the slur and its memory stored. I find useful to think of past, present, future as the concept 'now' as moment. Thus it is an illusion to distinguish past from future from present now moments. That is, the slur you refer to is the combined slur of all possible types of now moments (present, past, future), all of them are illusion, the only objective aspect of the mental picture is a mental representation of an entity in motion during the "time slices', and even this is a veiled objective reality since the essence of the object of motion in-of-itself is by definition unknowable.

[Rade]

Aethelwulf, I have a question. If neither time nor space are fundamental, then I assume your model puts motion as fundamental to the universe, correct ? Then, what of the opposite of motion, what we call rest. Suppose an object with potential of movement, M, and a second object with no potential of movement, R, that is, it is at rest. Suppose M is at a state of no movement, thus it is as if it is R, at rest. Would it not be true that neither M nor R could be said to be 'within time' while at a state of rest, the reason being that to say anything is within time requires that it is being measured by time. Then, suppose M has a begin of motion and after some duration comes to rest, a state like R. Would we not say that time is a measure of both the motion of M and its rest R ? In this way, potential for motion can exist without time, and even an object once in motion and now at rest can exist without time, as long as no measurement of motion exists. Is this why you say that motion (and thus indirectly rest) is more fundamental than time, e.g., that motion can exist fundamentally without measurement ?

[Aethelwulf]

First of all, you'd have to prove a particle can be at rest. We know that isn't true because no thing is truly ever at rest. This was a mistake in relativity which is yet to be fixed: To do that, you'd have to transpose relativity into a non-classical theory which takes into account the Uncertainty Principle. Then once that has been done, you will be able to show that not only is everything in the universe in motion, but that time itself is nothing but what we call changes with every object in the universe. The sum of all moving objects constitutes the illusion of time, that is, there is only change but not time. Time therefore cannot be fundamental, only change and motion is.